Can there be good nationalism?

Perceptions of the nationalism as presented by SNP and UKIP seem to differ. Why should this be, when quite clearly both are nationalist parties and nationalism is widely condemned in principle as a dangerous, isolating ideology?

In part, perception depends on who is looking. Those of the Left will clearly see UKIP and its like critically, both because we come from the opposite end of the political spectrum and because they stand for all that we reject. Yet we see in the SNP something far less objectionable, despite it seeking, at least superficially, the same separatist agenda. Secondly, the message from Scotland's nationalists differs from that of UKIP, the EDL etc. It aims for democratic inclusion, consultation and cooperation rather than prescription. Even after separation it wants to engage in EU and UK, politically and economically as well as commercially. Thirdly - and here is the clincher - the SNP is voicing a desire for self-determination, or absence of remote control, which resonates with many voters on both sides of the border.

Adversarial behaviour to the referendum in Scotland brings out sympathy on the part of many. Had Cameron shown leadership in the fight for the union rather than delegating to someone he otherwise belittled; had a positive vision been depicted of the Union instead of mere criticism of Scotland's economics (its always all about money with the Tories); had the more popular Devo-Max option been allowed on the ballot paper, the chance of staying united would now be far greater. But he acted as Whitehall usually does, dictatorially, patronisingly, remotely and perhaps more in England's interests, it is Cameron who will have to live with the label of the PM who oversaw the break-up of a nation, whilst handing a part of it to its nationalists. Only time will tell if the latter were right or not but right now, it is quite easy to see why their form of nationalism looks attractive.
Tom Serpell

Democratisation of funding

The "yaa-boo" between political parties about sources of funds is rarely far below the surface nor is it very edifying. Today, a revolution is under way in how funds are raised for the Arts, social and community causes, which could change this. Crowd-funding allows those with ideas to raise money have them turned into reality not, as hitherto, by going cap-in-hand to some wealthy or powerful individual or institution but by appealing to those most likely to appreciate the outcome for small contributions, which can be aggregated towards a larger target. These contributors may be a future audience, the local community or just supporters. Each will be willing to contribute partly because they are asked for little; but each will be offered some form of benefit or reward. This process is enabled by the Internet, where well tried processes and hosts make it easy. The promise of funds occurs in the Idea stage, meaning both that resource for implementation is obtained but so is buy-in when the Idea becomes Reality.

How could this relate to politics, Labour in particular? First, Labour has the need and desire to engage more democratically with its supporters; and to raise funds in new ways. Second, many supporters get pretty fed up with endless begging messages from HQ without knowing on what money will be or has been spent. Third, many may be all too willing to make small contributions to those costs of which they most approve. The party, on an appropriate platform, could itemise options for contributors: investment in a nationwide network for rural Labour, for example, vs employment of social media specialists for CLPs, vs a campaign to stay in EU; to see which appeal most and to gain support from those who relate to the topics concerned. This model has proved effective in engaging support for petitions via 38 Degrees, Avaaz etc.

Target budgets can be set which must be attained before action is taken, making selection democratic and also creating a fan-club for the ideas supported. Use of such new but effective models will reinvigorate funding and energise younger voters into action teams.
Tom Serpell, @uckfieldlabour

Today I am in Cornwall recharging my batteries

but, unlike the PM, I do not have a country to run. I will return to the word factory next week.

No wonder politics is despised

Government in thrall to capital
Policy decided by electoral considerations over national interest
Arms exports determining foreign policy*
Peerages for party funders
Personality over values
Success measured by GDP rather than people's well-being
Wealth on a pedestal while weak are demonised
Super-rich allowed huge income rises while social security is destroyed
Police policing the police
[*Let us not forget that it is our ally and customer Israel which commits atrocities in Palestine; and another, Saudi Arabia, which funds the awful ISIL. What sort of foreign policy is this?]
These are just some of the reasons. All of them can be addressed but only by a Labour government.

Alternatives to Government borrowing and regressive taxation

Chancellors are wont to use marginal tax rates both to fund public services and national debt repayments and to appeal to voters according to their political priorities. Their changes are then reversed by their successor. This rather fruitless game leaves the poorest majority in society as the pawns in a game, always far more affected by changes than those whose wealth insulates them from the impact of such moves.

As Labour seeks to come to power to refocus policy on people rather than just GDP, it will be constrained both by a commitment to debt reduction and the accusation of being a “tax and spend” party, but it will need to fund its priority programmes. Higher VAT is surely inconceivable, because it hits the pockets of the poorest most. This leaves Income Tax and NIC rises as options, perpetuating the visible ping-pong but changing nothing structurally.

There is surely a case for reconsideration of what should be taxed. Currently, taxes are principally levied on work [Income Tax; NIC] and expenditure [VAT], the two activities essential both for the economy of the country and for that of individuals. This seems counter-intuitive.

Could it make more sense to treat taxation as a form of payment for use of the principal asset of the country, its land? This is finite. It has come to be “owned” but is in reality an immutable, physical entity and part of the heritage of the whole population. “Ownership” is really temporary, exclusive tenure of land by those fortunate enough, but who have done nothing to create it and often nothing to increase its value, though its use enables economic activities. Depending on the profitability of these activities, the apparent value of the land grows but without those carrying out the activity necessarily contributing anything for the privilege of its use. On occasion, value rises despite lack of use.

Taxing land value [Land Value Tax] could become an effective and fair source of revenue. Local Authorities or a national land-bank could readily determine permitted use for any parcel, ascribe a value to that use and tax accordingly. This enables those who would profit from using the land – through letting in fracking, for example - to recompense the State or community for allowing them sole rights to do their activities on it. The higher the demand and the more valuable the activity, the more can local services be funded and the fairer the overall tax system can become. Unused land with a defined value could more readily be purchased compulsorily for the good of the community rather than being blocked for asset inflation; whilst primary residences could be exempted.

Taxing land value annually [in effect a Ground Rent to society for tenure] would enable a concomitant reduction in the regressive taxes on individuals’ efforts, enabling more people to keep or spend more of their earnings, satisfying agendas of both left and right whilst recognising differences in local economic needs. Wholesale adoption of such a scheme would seem a high risk without testing its efficacy and de-bugging it on a local scale. Maintaining universal democratic engagement of tax-payers would be essential but Labour’s new focus on rebuilding local governance may offer the perfect opportunity for theories and new tax models such as Land Value Tax to be piloted, perhaps especially in rural areas with needs for infrastructure investments . of the kind accessible to urban environments.

Tom Serpell

Gaza: Actions not impotence

Politicians of all parties throughout the West seem like rabbits in the headlights when Israel is mentioned. It seems that they are fearful of accusations of anti-Semitism or holocaust denial if they dare to criticise the Israeli State. Yet what is happening in Gaza surely goes beyond what can be brushed under the carpet for the sake of historical guilt. Israel behaves with impunity not even afforded to Hitler's Germany, despite increasingly acting as racist human rights deniers. When will politicians or the UN show some leadership and humanity if they are afraid even to use the language for what is happening which properly describes it?

Actions are needed. Here are just some from which they could choose a beginning:

• Apply arms embargo on Israel, ie stop selling our arms to them
• Propose UN sanctions
• ProposeUN safety zone along Gaza's borders
• Hold an International conference to problem-solve the creation of a sea-port for Gaza
• Unilaterally delist Israeli and illegal West Bank goods from import

Note the use of "propose", - even this goes too far for the vote- and finance-conscious Government we suffer from in UK currently. Therefore it must be up to Labour to show the leadership so lacking elsewhere. Come on Ed - lets help the poor people of Gaza instead of wring hands and tutting.

Double standards in hand-wringing

A new Foreign Secretary but how much difference? Talk tough about Russian-backed troubles in Ukraine but do nothing to upset the arms and finance sectors - could have been Hague or Hammond. Say nothing about Gaza except to express continuing support for the racist regime in Israel - could be any Foreign Secretary for decades: not even tough talk.

When almost 300 die at the hands of a Russian-backed militia, the Government talks tough [but will do nothing]. When over 300 die at the hands of a US-backed, UK arms customer there is barely a word of sympathy for the bereft or wounded and certainly no help to the underdog.  The Tory determination to base diplomacy on export potential, largely unfulfilled, has left this country looking like beggars in the international community, with little to offer except an order book for more guns and a cringing fear of retaliation against any real toughness, for fear that our beloved financial services sector will suffer and top mates' bonuses be reduced. Failure to build alliances has left UK isolated such that even the tough words are undeliverable and we are left with hand-wringing; and not even that for poor Gaza.

Israel has flouted UN resolutions galore with impunity. Its treatment of the indigenous population of the lands it has stolen would constitute reason for international action were these by any country other than the untouchable Israel. Is it not time, with historical perspective on UK's own role in causing the hopeless divisions in Palestine, to become the Palestinians' friend? A sea-port with internationally guarantees safe passage, perhaps protected by our otherwise pointless Navy, would seem a good start.